Joel Sherman makes the case for Bryce Harper signing a relatively short-term deal with the Dodgers:

But the other choice, particularly for Harper, is fascinating. Because even if the Dodgers refuse to offer the mega-deal, landing there for four-ish years is what is best for Harper and — not that this should matter to the slugger — the game. Harper is the one player who could walk down a street and be recognized even by the casual fan. He belongs in the star factory because it would extend his brand like no other locale, while being so close to his Vegas home. Is it just me who already sees the Sports Illustrated baseball preview issue with — in full uniform — LeBron James and Harper on the cover with the title, “Oooh, L.A., L.A.?” The ESPN group interview with that duo plus Todd Gurley? That helps Harper and it helps MLB, with its mega-star being associated with the biggest star in sports.

NY Post

I feel that larger average values and shorter time spans benefit both the player and the team. It’s better than the opt-out, that may get a player in the fold, but still hurts the team long term if the contract doesn’t work out. Driving up the average annual value would help arbitration eligible players as well. It’s a strategy the union should encourage.